The committee’s study of the draft regulations under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act has been dominated by a recurring tension between those who see the regulations as a historic step forward and those who argue they are too narrow, vague, or misaligned with existing frameworks. Francophone minority community organizations, such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA), the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, and the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, have broadly welcomed the regulations but pressed for broader geographic designation of regions with a strong francophone presence, lower employee thresholds outside Quebec, and stronger enforcement mechanisms including proactive compliance and a mandatory five-year review with a non-regression principle. In contrast, the Canadian Bankers Association and WestJet have urged caution, calling for narrower designation criteria, flexibility in supervision, and adequate implementation timelines, while Droits collectifs Québec argued the federal regime unnecessarily duplicates and conflicts with Quebec’s Charter of the French Language and recommended removing Quebec from the federal framework entirely.

A second major theme has been the adequacy of the regulations’ definitions and enforcement architecture. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Kelly Burke, stated that the draft regulations contain significant ambiguities regarding key terms like “consumer,” “service,” and “communication,” and do not meet the standard needed to implement Parliament’s intent. She recommended a mandatory public registry of businesses, broader regional designation using qualitative criteria, and additional resources for her office. Department of Canadian Heritage officials defended the regulations as the result of years of consultation and confirmed that the minister has authority—but not a duty—to publish a list of subject businesses, a point that drew criticism from several members. Witnesses from the Acadian Society of New Brunswick and the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta supported the regulations as a concrete step but echoed calls for stronger proactive measures and better reflection of local realities, including the designation of Calgary and parts of Edmonton.

On Part VII of the Official Languages Act, witnesses across multiple meetings were nearly unanimous in criticizing the draft regulations as too vague, process-oriented, and lacking measurable objectives. Academics such as Stéphanie Chouinard and Rémi Léger argued the regulations merely paraphrase the act without providing tools for implementation or indicators to measure progress toward substantive equality. Organizations representing health, culture, legal, and post-secondary sectors—including Société Santé en français, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française, and the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne—called for clearer definitions of “positive measures,” mandatory impact analyses at all stages of federal-provincial agreements, and transparent consultation and accountability mechanisms. The Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne raised a distinct concern that the regulations fail to integrate a language lens into gender-based analysis plus, leaving francophone women invisible in federal policies.

Over the course of the hearings, a clear divergence emerged between francophone minority community stakeholders and representatives of Quebec-based or business interests. While community organizations consistently pushed for broader designation, lower thresholds, and proactive enforcement, business witnesses and Droits collectifs Québec emphasized the risk of duplication, regulatory burden, and the need for flexibility. The committee also saw a procedural undercurrent, with motions to study other topics—such as Air Canada’s CEO conduct, intimidation of a public servant, and the integration of francoqueers—being introduced and sometimes deferred or adjourned, reflecting competing priorities alongside the core regulatory study. The Department of Canadian Heritage’s defense of the regulations as net-positive and the result of extensive consultation stood in contrast to the near-universal criticism from civil society witnesses that the regulations do not go far enough.